Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/233/2019

Sh. Shankar Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amarbir Dhaliwal

16 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/233/2019
Date of Institution	:	08/04/2019
Date of Decision	:	16/11/2022

 

Sh. Shankar Jindal S/o Sh. Jai Prakash Jindal, R/o House No.2527, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. MakeMytrip India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Chairman/Authorized Signatory.

     Head Office: DLF Building No.5 Tower B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana 122002, India.

     Regd. Office: B-36, 1^st Floor, Pusa Road, Delhi, New Delhi DL 110005 IN.

2. NokScoot Airlines Co. Ltd., Unit 302 A, 3^rd Floor, ABW Tower, M.G. Road, Near IFFCO Chowk, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 (India), through its Managing Director/ Chairman/Authorized Officer.
3. Directorate of Information and Regulation, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), DGCA Headquarters, OPP. Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi 110003, through its Director/Joint Director General.

 

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Parminder Singh, Vice Counsel for Sh.Nitin Bhasin, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	OP No.2 ex-parte.
	:	None for OP No3.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant intended to visit Bangkok, Thailand for tourism purpose from 09.03.2019 to 18.03.2019 and consequently booked a return ticket on the flight of OP No.2, on 29.12.2018 through the web portal of OP No.1 (Annexure C-1). The complainant also got permission to leave country sanctioned by the Govt. of Haryana whereby he was to return back to India no later than 18.03.2019 (Annexure C-4). However, the complainant reached the Indira Gandhi Airport, New Delhi on 09.03.2019. Copy of the said boarding pass is annexed as Annexure C-5.

         As per complainant, on 17.03.2019 when he checked out from his hotel in Bangkok, Thailand at 13:00 hrs, well in time against the flight time of 22:35 hrs. He had a bad experience when confirmed flight was cancelled by OP No.2. Thus, the complainant was shocked and utterly perplexed and surprised to find that the return flight from Thailand to India has been cancelled for no rhyme or reason and without his prior consent or notice and was now rescheduled to 19.03.2019. Subsequently, without wasting any time, the complainant contacted OP No.1 explaining the whole problematic situation including his ex-India permission till 18.03.2019. The complainant further requested the Opposite Parties to reschedule the flight on the same day i.e., 18.03.2019 (Annexure C-6). However, it was of no avail. Thereafter complainant requested his far away relative in Thailand and got booked a ticket for himself from Bangkok to Delhi for (Thai Baht) THB 9,799.77/- i.e., Rs.21,265.5009/- (Annexure C-8). Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint filed its written reply and stated that the office of the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) issued guidelines dated 06.08.2010, whereby it directed the airlines to refund full amount to customers, in case of cancellation of flights/tickets by the airlines. In the present case, concerned airlines is liable to refund/compensate the complainant for the alleged cancellation of the flight, hence, OP No.1 shall not be liable for the same. As per the policy of the DGCA, the Airlines are bound to process the refund in accordance with CAR Section 3, Series M, Part II. The concerned Airlines i.e., OP No.2 is liable for the refund to the complainant. A copy of the guidelines issued by the DGCA is annexed as Annexure R-3. It is also submitted that the OP No.1 is not responsible or liable for any reschedule or change of routes, timings of the flights. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.2 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 03.12.2019.   
4.     OP No.3 contested the consumer complaint filed its written reply and stated that the complainant relate to deficiency of service and DGCA being the Civil Aviation Safety regulator does not have any role in the disputes related to deficiency of services viz., luggage fee, missing of baggage, cancellation of flight without intimation etc. between passengers/customers and their airlines. Accordingly, it has nothing to do with such matters. The issue involved in the said complaint is the purely a matter between the complainant and the OP No.1 & 2 only. Moreover, no relief has been claimed against the OP No.3 by the complainant. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.3.
5.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have perused the record, including written arguments of the case.
8.     The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that despite payment of the ticket and the baggage fee to the tune of Rs.19,148.38/- to travel through airline of OP No.2, the scheduled flight for returning back from Thailand to India was cancelled without any prior information. Pertinently, the complainant is a employee of Govt. of Haryana and as per rules and regulations his leave was sanctioned upto 18.03.2019 which could not be changed and as per rule if the employee does not return in time his service can be terminated. In such like urgent situation the complainant preferred to fly on the same day through some other flight and had to spend extra money for the same.
9.     The stand taken by OP No.1 (MakeMyTrip) is that it has nothing to do with schedule of the flight. It is OP No.2 only who cancelled the flight, hence it cannot be held liable.
10.     Significantly, OP No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
11.     As per record when scheduled flight was cancelled, the complainant contacted OP No.2 without wasting any time explaining the whole problematic situation including his exit India permission till 18.03.2019. However the OP No.1 instead of giving satisfactory reply to the repeated requests made by the complainant told the complainant to contact OP No.2 only for rescheduling flight on the same day. But even OP No.2 did not give any satisfactory solution to the problem. Without having extra money the complainant requested one of his far away relatives in Thailand and got booked a ticket for himself from Bangkok to Delhi.
12.     Moreover as per Annexure R-3 (Civil Aviation Requirements Sector 3-AIR transport Series ‘M’ Part IV Issue I Dated 6^th August, 2010) page 24 the clause 3.3.1 is reproduced as under.

    “3.3.1 In order to reduce inconvenience caused to the passengers as a result of the cancellation of the flights on which they are booked to travel, airline shall inform the passenger of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure and arrange alternate flight/refund as acceptable to the passenger. In case the passengers are informed of the cancellation less than two weeks before and up to 24 hours of the scheduled time of departure the airline shall offer an alternate flight or refund the ticket, as acceptable to the passenger.”

         We are of the view that it was duty of OP No.1 to take proper follow up from OP No.2 for refund to the complainant being well versed with clause mentioned above.

13.     Hence, we opine that the act of OP No.1 & 2 for cancelling the flight without any specific reason and prior information, non-providing rescheduled flight on the same day, most importantly, non-appearing of OP No.2 during the proceedings of the present case and therefore, non-providing proper services proves deficiency in services and their indulgence in unfair trade practice. 
14.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. To refund amount of ₹11,691/-to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of cancellation of flight till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

15.     Since neither any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been alleged nor any relief has been prayed against OP No.3, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
16.     This order be complied with by the OP No.1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
17.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
16/11/2022			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member